8/29/2011

Plenty of people — Ed Morrissey and Mollie Hemingway anomg them — have neatly dissected New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller’s perfect storm of ignorance and bias when it comes to the religious beliefs of those running for the GOP presidential nominee. Keller identified Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum as “all affiliated with fervid subsets of evangelical Christianity,” when Santorum is Catholic, Bachmann is Lutheran, and Perry is a Methodist. Keller hauls out the boogeyman of “dominionism,” when none of his targets are dominionists, and so on. The response (such as it is) to this criticism by Keller and the rest of the establishment media is nearly as telling as the original smears.

On Twitter, Keller had two responses to his critics. First, Keller noted that he was not seeing any quarrel with the basic point that we should ask candidates about their faith. I certainly have no quarrel with that point. In 2008, I wrote about Barack Obama’s decades-long membership in a church based on black liberation theology and his decades-long relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and criticized the establishment media for not treating Obama the way JFK or Mitt Romney were treated on faith issues.

However, this merely underscores the major criticism lodged against Keller, which was that the New York Times avoided giving Obama scrutiny on faith issues. Keller’s second response was that the NYT was “late to Rev. Wright in ’08, but we got there, and did it well.” This response is dishonest or delusional, possibly both. When a political controversy erupts in March 2008 and the NYT does not give it proper news coverage until September 2008, getting there late is bad coverage. Would Keller defend covering a hurricane six months late? Please. Nor was the quality of the NYT coverage good, by the standards Keller now thinks should be applied, asking none of the sort of questions Keller now thinks should be asked. Indeed, Keller’s response on this point is particularly embarrassing once you learn that the NYT actually covered Obama’s relationship with Rev. Wright in April 2007, reporting:

It is hard to imagine, though, how Mr. Obama can truly distance himself from Mr. Wright. The Christianity that Mr. Obama adopted at Trinity has infused not only his life, but also his campaign. He began his presidential announcement with the phrase “Giving all praise and honor to God,” a salutation common in the black church. He titled his second book, “The Audacity of Hope,” after one of Mr. Wright’s sermons, and often talks about biblical underdogs, the mutual interests of religious and secular America, and the centrality of faith in public life.

With hindsight, it is easy to imagine how Obama could distance himself: by relying on the establishment media generally, and the NYT in particular, to mostly look the other way at the crucial moment.

It is worth noting — as Ed Morrissey and Lisa Miller did — that the NYT’s Keller is hardly alone in falsely playing the “Crazy Christian” card. Similarly erroneous, x-degrees-of-separation journalism has been committed by Rachel Maddow on MSNBC, NPR’s Fresh Air, Ryan Lizza at the New Yorker and Michelle Goldberg, a senior contributing writer for Newsweek/The Daily Beast. From there, the bogus story gets treated as a serious topic of discussion at forums including the WaPo, CNN and USA Today.

Thus does the establishment media function the way Hillary Clinton once claimed the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy operated. Thus does the establishment media again operate with the sort of “epistemic closure” that the Julian Sanchezes, Conor Friedersdorfs and Andrew Sullivans of the world are so quick to condemn in the conservative media (when they aren’t busy ignoring Sullivan’s obsession with the status of Sarah Palin’s uterus). Ironically, Sullivan has been foaming at the mouth about “Christianism” for years.

Indeed, almost all of those soooo concerned about bogus memes circulating in a conservative echo chamber will never treat Rachel Maddow the way they treat Glenn Beck. (Indeed, they won’t blink over the fact that a religious left activist — the Rev. Al Sharpton — now hosts a show on MSNBC.) They will never view NewsBeast the way they view WorldNetDaily. They will never compare Bill Keller to Sean Hannity — and rightly so. After all, Hannity correctly identified the theology of Obama’s longtime church and interviewed Rev. Wright. Hannity committed more actual journalism on this subject than Keller did. More self-aware lefties in the media, like TNR’s Jonathan Chait, should take note that this is another example of the magical thinking of liberals.

We still don’t know if Obama was in the pews when Wright spewed his various anti-American gibberish, like when Wright after 9/11 talked about America’s chickens coming home to roost. And we don’t know such things because the liberal MSM never asked the question of Obama. Much like the LA Times won’t even release the tape they have of Obama speaking at Rashid Khalidi’s going away party. Nor why they never asked him about Ayers, who in the NY Times of September 11th, 2001 was openly bragging about bombing the Pentagon and trying to bomb Fort Dix. Or how college student Obama traveled financially to Pakistan after the Zia coup, and what passport he used.

I have no problem with background questions being asked of anyone running for president. But the Times and their ilk were never so incurious as when The One came on the scene.

Santorum has no shot. But anyone who has followed him for more than 5 minutes knows he is a devout Catholic. It could be Keller is incurious even as to things commonly known.

I think it’s fair to hold Perry responsible for his associations, giving them the weight warranted by how long or intimate they may be. The point is that the MSM is giving them far greater weight than they seem to warrant, falsely suggesting Perry is himself a dominionist, after having largely dismissed a much more serious connection in Obama’s past.

I already linked that segment in the main post. Note that our tax dollars went to a segment featuring an activist, rather than a theologian, clergy or minister, and with essentially no balance at all. A very unlovely example of closure.

it’s hard to feel sorry for Perry what with his monster truck prayer rally and all the silly pledges he’s signed

Um, what exactly is wrong with monster truck prayer rallies? To me this sounds like exactly the snobbery of the Bill Kellers of the world, who think their culture and peculiar tastes are better than those of Flyover Country. I mean, maybe there’s something about these things that I don’t know, some real reason why they are proper objects of criticism and/or mockery; if so, please enlighten me. But from my unenlightened perspective it seems to me that a mass rally, whether for the purpose of prayer or racing monster trucks, is of precisely the same cultural value as an rock concert or a football game or a political convention. I see no reason why a political candidate would not want to participate, or is opening himself to criticism by doing so.

And which silly pledges are you talking about, exactly? Please specify, and explain if necesary why you think they’re silly.

I knew before clicking it would involve Hendrick. I learned about Rick Hendrick when studying his case of fraud. Rick confessed and then Clinton commuted or pardoned Rick because he was dying of leukemia. He had a nice recovery. Hendrick’s cars often have sponsorship from the AARP, and Rick gave the Clinton library millions of dollars, which I think was payment for getting out of the penalty for his crimes.

Amazes me how many patriotic Americans root for that team’s cars. But a lot of people are much better than I am at ignoring politics, which is probably not such a bad trait on their part.

“the magical thinking of liberals.” Wrong term. This is becoming a bad habit.

You are meaning to say “the delusional thinking of liberals.” There IS such a thing as “magical thinking,” and it is not necessarily a negative thing, so please don’t misuse the term on the delusional.

Larry, the NYT was caught red handing lying. There’s no way around it, and if you’re defending them that says a lot about you. Nothing most of us didn’t already figure out a long time ago, but still, all that needs to be said.

If Fox News did something like that to Sherrod, you’d have a good reason to be upset. Note that they didn’t.

I don’t know what Patterico is working on, but feel free to write an extensive post of your own. I am certain a post from you would be consistent with your demonstrated standards of writing and fact-checking. I eagerly await.

Funny, I didn’t know that dishonestly walking back a story was a “body slam”.

Comment by SPQR — 8/29/2011 @ 3:04 pm

It says a lot that Larry thinks body slamming Republicans is the NYT’s proper function. Or that it should have anything but profuse apologies when caught making stuff up.

No, all the NYT needs to do when caught lying is go on the warpath again. Punch back twice as hard.

Keller knows his place. The NYT has a little niche now. They are to trash the USA, the US military, and Republicans. They can be caught lying and routinely are, but at this point they can hold onto their remaining readership by consistently attacking those three concepts.

My first priority is the economy and jobs, too, but we can’t make that the exclusive criteria for every voter. Different issues matter to different people.

In addition, not to pick on Ron Paul but I generally think his views on the economy and jobs are reasonable. However, his foreign policy (especially his views on 9/11) don’t appeal to me at all. Thus, Paul is a good example of why I think we need to know how all candidates view many issues.

when your little country is in an economic death spiral then yes non-economic pledgings are silly

should, god-willing, Mr. Governor Perry be successful in his endeavor to become our president, it will not matter what inane social con pledgings he makes – he will not have won a mandate for anything but to salvage some semblance of an economic future for our sad blighted little nation

simple as that

and I think he knows that… it boggles the mind to think he would decide to become the Jesus president while our little country plummeted into an abyss of debt and fail.

Democrats don’t mind their leaders being Christian because they understand they don’t really mean it. Hypocrisy is much easier for them to accept than religion.

However, if a man is really sincere in his faith would you not expect him to invoke or call on God in a time of crisis or peril? I would not be comfortable if he said that only prayer was needed and did not take those measures possible to help, but as far as faith is concerned I am much happier with people who are honest about it and don’t see it as political posturing, even though I don’t share that faith.

That would be nice, but what has it got to do with these pledges he has made? What are they, and why do you think they’re silly? Is everything not to do with the economy silly by definition?

Hi Milhouse. I think the “we teach it both ways” thing he said to that schoolkid about evolution / “intelligent design” was one of the most embarrassing silly things that this Republican has seen in terms of social conservatism.

But no, not every non-economic thing is silly “by default.” Good point.

Keller’s second response was that the NYT was “late to Rev. Wright in ’08, but we got there, and did it well.” This response is dishonest or delusional, possibly both.

I bet a million bucks that Keller perceives Jeremiah Wright and Obama’s embrace of his former “Goddamn America” pastor (until controversy ensued) as somehow not too symptomatic of stridency and polarization in today’s era. As certainly far less strident or polarizing than, say, Fox News and Rupert Murdoch. After all, look at how Keller (per below) ludicrously and nonsensically conflates his workplace with that of a major socio-political disaster — genocide, no less — in Africa.

The origins of such delusions?

Keller was born in 1949, meaning that he today is 62 years old. For anyone to have gone through most of his or her lifetime and still remain tied to a nonsensical leftist way of thinking is a sign of intrinsic basic immaturity. It’s like a person born with dyslexia or epilepsy.

Of course, I’m assuming Keller wasn’t a conservative or even true centrist in his earlier years. But if he were, then his current condition would be a sign of his not only not evolving during his lifetime, but his actually regressing.

“Saving the New York Times now ranks with saving Darfur as a high-minded cause.”
— Bill Keller, executive editor of the NY Times, April 2, 2009

Politico.com, February 2011:

Bill Keller and Dean Baquet, the New York Times’s executive editor and Washington bureau chief, were interviewed at the National Press Club Monday night by Marvin Kalb. When Kalb asked what Keller thought of Rupert Murdoch…Keller impishly replied “Who?” before saying that he thought Murdoch’s greatest impact in the United States comes through Fox News.

[Bill Keller:] “I think the effect of Fox News on American public life has been to create a level of cynicism about the news in general. It has contributed to the sense that they are all just out there with a political agenda, but Fox is just more overt about it. And I think that’s unhealthy.

We have had a lot of talk since the Gabby Giffords attempted murder about civility in our national discourse, and I make no connection between the guy who shot those people in Tucson and the national discourse. But it is true that the national discourse is more polarized and strident than it has been in the past, and to some extent, I would lay that at the feet of Rupert Murdoch.“

^ Keller has the gall to believe his part of the media is somehow more impartial than, and therefore not as “unhealthy” as, a small sector of the MSM that leans right?! Bill, you’re so two-faced your head must be constantly spinning around.

In addition, not to pick on Ron Paul but I generally think his views on the economy and jobs are reasonable. However, his foreign policy (especially his views on 9/11) don’t appeal to me at all. Thus, Paul is a good example of why I think we need to know how all candidates view many issues.

Good example. If on 10-Sep-2001 you had told me that Ron Paul would one day mount a serious presidential campaign, and that I would not be supporting him, I’d have called you crazy. I could not have imagined a better candidate for president than Paul. And I still think if he became president he’d turn the USA into a paradise — ten minutes before the Islamists blew it up. If we had a system with two “presidents” — call one a prime minister — where one took care of foreign policy and defense and the other took care of domestic policy, I’d still support Paul for the domestic job. I just don’t trust him with our safety.

Mr. Feets – Needs are urgent and it appears that Gov. Mr. Fat Mittens Get Off The Beach will not be joing the fray, so what this country could use is a little non-feckless leadership for a change which Mr. Gov. Former Democrat Idiot Good Hair seems to promise even if some people seem somewhat offput by a little godbothering.

I think the “we teach it both ways” thing he said to that schoolkid about evolution / “intelligent design” was one of the most embarrassing silly things that this Republican has seen in terms of social conservatism.

Really? What’s wrong with it? For that matter, why are so many people so obsessed with this whole topic? Who cares what schools teach about evolution/creation? What conceivable difference does it make? And especially, what conceivable difference does it make what a presidential candidate thinks about it, considering that the president has no say on the question? For the record, a clear majority of presidents to date have been creationists; has that in any way affected their performance in office?

“….Hi Milhouse. I think the “we teach it both ways” thing he said to that schoolkid about evolution / “intelligent design” was one of the most embarrassing silly things that this Republican has seen in terms of social conservatism….”

Actually, I would like to see people on both sides of the aisle actually define evolution. Whenever I ask this question, I hear about politics, not science. The folks on the Left who sneer at the Right sure don’t define it very well to a person who is, well, a biologist. Neither side is talking about science at all.

It’s sort of like people on both sides carrying on about AGW…and yet don’t know a darned thing (the politicians, certainly) about climate modeling, etc.

Here is an example. I would love to see every major politician who prattles on about climate change get this “gotcha” question, with no warning or prep:

What is the percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere currently? What was it 500 years ago? 5,000 years ago? Etc.

And yet people who can’t come anywhere near to the first question will call other people “ignorant.” Please.

Politics, as usual. Not science. But both sides beat each other up. The Republicans “hate” science, when I would dearly love to see every Democratic voter take a simple scientific literacy test.

Politics.

But then, the same can be said for all kinds of topics and politicians.

what this country could use is a little non-feckless leadership for a change which Mr. Gov. Former Democrat Idiot Good Hair seems to promise even if some people seem somewhat offput by a little godbothering.

What this country could really use is the non-feckless leadership of Mrs Gov. Fight Like A Girl, what is all about the economies and the transparency and cleanliness in government (which is next to godliness but not in a godbothering way), and what believes in evolution and in not imposing her so-con views on other peoples.

It is good that some people can make the effort and energy to document these things, because with my ADDishness, if you ask me who in the media is saying stupid things about religious faith I would simply quote, “Round up the usual suspects”.

but as far as faith is concerned I am much happier with people who are honest about it and don’t see it as political posturing, even though I don’t share that faith. – Comment by Machinist
There you go, being intellectually honest and logical again, keep it up and they’ll be writing about you next. 😉

O/T, but relevant to our condition…
John Steele Gordon in an OpEd on the National Debt in today’s WSJ brought to light some interesting numbers:
1946, in the aftermath of WW-2, the National Debt was $269B, or 129.98% of GDP;
In 1960, the debt had increased by $17B to $286B – 58% of GDP.
Debt/GDP reached 68.91% in 1994 – and then came Newt:
In the next six years, debt/GDP was reduced to 57.3% – less than it had been in 1960!

As many have said: We don’t have a revenue problem (for with an expanding economy there will always be plenty of revenue), we have a spending problem.

BTW, a reminder, that $17B of increased debt from ’46 to ’60, paid for the Marshall Plan, Korea, the Strategic Air Command (bombers over battleships), the start of our missile program, and the Interstate Highway System (well, a start – and Yes, I know it was in large part paid for with a user fee: the gas tax).

Why not? Are they like coke and mentos? Will they explode if you mix them? Or is it just like white with fish and red with meat, where if you mix them it’s no big deal, except for Chuck’s son with gout, who should really stick to white and shouldn’t be eating meat anyway.

It’s not like Texas schools are telling kids that God created them. They are noting there is a scientific question of the true origin of life, and one explanation, which they are not endorsing, is the religious one.

Frankly, one is not educated without being aware of religion at that level.

exploiting religion for to gain political power is crass and more than a little trashy

As far as the evolution and creationism issue goes, the person exploiting religion was a lefty ambushing Perry to answer an irrelevant question via her child.

As far as Perry taking part in religious observances, I am not even paying attention to that. So long as there’s nothing dishonest, I see no reason to worry about it. He’s got a record and some sort of agenda, and we should focus on that instead.

Politics are what they are. Politicians have to show you they have a spouse and children and are safe and normal and wholesome. Don’t blame them for playing the game. Perry isn’t making a huge deal out of religion. He’s making a huge deal out of jobs, spending, and quasi-treasonous currency creation.

oh. I was talking about the monster truck prayer rally again not the creationism thing

Comment by happyfeet —

I know. I’m just making the general point that religion won’t be divorced from politics. It’s going to be injected. So Perry made a mild prayer thing that isn’t important, and some lefty kook ambushed him with religion.

Sure, you may like it if, somehow, churches actually contain religion like a terrarium, but they won’t. It’s just too central to the identities of a lot of folks.

I see why you’d find the topic amusing, because the humor potential of a monster truck prayer event seems pretty substantial, and I’d see why you’d be bored to tears by religious shows because politicians are generally cynical rather than Christ-like.

I don’t know what solution you’ve got in mind, so I offered mine. Don’t pay attention to it unless there’s something particularly dishonest or abhorrent (like Rev Wright, I guess).

There’s not going to be a 2012 GOP nominee who doesn’t show some Christianity. No use fighting it. I happen to be very similar to Perry religiously, and there’s really nothing to be worried about there. Be glad he’s fiscally on the right track.

that’s not even true though – while our little country circles the toilet of debt and fail Rick wants to amend our constitution not once but twice for white trash monster truck Jesus

Comment by happyfeet

Ohhhhh,

You got me there. That’s something I disagree with him on. I loved it when he was the libertarian-lite conservative who just wanted the states to do their thing, and find his flip flop to amending the constitution to be too cute by half and totally stupid.

Mr. Dustin I agree that a certain inevitability attends but it’s nevertheless all to the good to assert that there is such a thing as a quiet personal faith what is defiantly unevangelical, and to further assert that there’s no reason that America’s president not be possessed of such a faith.

But yeah I think for all his greasy religious twaddle Mr. Perry will do right by the economy. I will happily vote for him, just not super duper happily.

George Washington was a very religious man whose faith was an inseparable part of his philosophy and values, and he certainly did not hide this or attempt to keep it silent in his political activities. It did not stop him from from setting the benchmark standards for honor and virtue that all Presidents have tried to live up to or at least pretend to live up to ever since. Nor did he try to set up a religious dictatorship.

Of all the things I fear in politicians, honest religious faith is just not one of them.

I have a bit of a concern that he will be a bit like Bush. I know he won’t be Bush’s fourth term or anything. The establishment greatly fears Perry because he has gotten so far without them. Perry’s best shot at reelection would be to actually preside over reform and see the Tea Party fight to defend him.

I think you and I both got our hopes shot way, way, way up by the initial appearance he was righteous on states rights with regard to social issues. He was going to let Cali and NY do their own thing while he focused on cutting spending instead of social stuff.

Then he made the constitutional amendment points, and I think that part was clearly playing politics. It’s disappointing, and you have to cynically calculate whether he meant his initial statement or the latter. My guess is he does sincerely believe in states rights, but is not willing to take that particular fight on.

It’s a compromise on core principles, much as I’ve bashed Romney over (only far less egregious).

I think Perry is still a very good nominee who will do a great job (better than Bush 41 or 43).

I will happily vote for him, just not super duper happily.

Right. The key is to get the happyfeets and the palinistas under one tent, which will likely mean everyone is compromising a bit.

Machinist’s comments are worth considering, Happyfeet. We could do a hell of a lot worse than a sincere Christian.

I don’t see why you’d be so sure Rick Perry is insincere. I have long had a gut instinct that he is too coiffed and pretty to be a normal thinking man, since I can’t stand politicians like Romney and Edwards.

Mr. Dustin more what I think is if you were to try and make a selling point of Rick’s sincerity it would fail. Rick Perry the man is not what people are gonna pull the lever for. Maybe in 2016. But not this go round. What Mr. Perry needs to sell is the philosophy and practice of the economic precepts what guide his thinking.

exploiting religion for to gain political power is crass and more than a little trashy

What makes you think Perry has done that? It seems to me he’s done the opposite: exploit his position as governor (i.e. use the bully pulpit it provides him) in order for to promote religion. Which is a perfectly correct thing to do. When a country is in crisis, its leaders should pray. How do you think anyone is ever going to solve our economic problems without some help from Above?

BTW, Feets, God made the whole world, not just the insides of churches. This country which you love so much was founded by people who called on God at every opportunity, and who believed that the country’s survival depends on God’s help, which we must pray for whenever it’s needed. Objecting to public prayer led by our governors and presidents, and insisting that prayer should be left to the churches, is un-American.

I do know that he has made questionable decisions as governor, but I also know he’s not, well, Obama, who seems intent on actually implementing policies and laws intended to make the U.S. the new Greece.

I don’t know why Obama wants to do that, but I will vote for someone who wants to put a stop to it.

Every president, even this one, goes to the National Prayer Breakfast every year and prays in front of TV cameras. If they had TV cameras in George Washington’s day he would have prayed in front of them.

Sincerity is in the vicinity of honesty, so if a person is not sincere it is hard to know when they are honest. Of course, the cynical would say they all lie, just don’t pick a politician that is pathological about it.

If one does a Boolean search or a Venn diagram of Machinist and Dustin, you find that someone who professes faith but says it doesn’t matter is like John Kerry or Nancy Pelosi who try to claim they know more about what it means to be Catholic than the Pope. They may believe what they believe, and they can say they are Catholic if they like, but they don’t get to tell the Pope what the teaching of the Catholic Church is.

For a person to say they believe in Jesus but it will not affect their profession (in this case being an elected official) is like a person saying they are a pilot but refuses to get in a plane out of fear it will crash. So if you think that people who believe in the Jesus of the Bible are crazy or stupid then say so and vote accordingly. That will be one more way American Society looks like Europe.

Of course, when people think you can just keep spending money whether you have it or not, and can take more and more of it from people whether they have it to give or not, then logical thinking and reasonable cause and effect are not winning the day.

Well, MD, it’s not that I think faith doesn’t matter. I just don’t have the ability to judge the faith of politicians. I know many of them are indeed being cynical. I also know that if they aren’t they surely are calling for help from God all the time, and relying on their religion for guidance in a political world that is tough for the honest.

I try not to evaluate candidates for religion because the information I get from them about their religion can’t be relied on. I’d rather focus on their agenda’s sensibility and their record.

It’s a mistake for me to suggest religion is unimportant, but I do treat it that way politically unless something severe comes up.

I would not mind Perry being more conservative but I hope the things I am less comfortable make him more acceptable to a wider base and therefore more electable. He does deserve much credit during his historically long run as Governor for keeping Texas a job making powerhouse when the nations economy has been collapsing under the assault of the Democrats. We have a balanced budget with a rainy day fund and no income tax, and Texas has made enough jobs to hold it’s unemployment rate below the nations even after absorbing millions of refugees fleeing the bankrupt and ruined blue states like CA and NY. He certainly has done something right, even if it was just getting out of the way.

I also like a President that packs a gun and shoots coyotes that attack his pets. Contrast that to Carter and the killer rabbit. 😉

Feets- back in the day elected officials often prayed in church while in the Capital building at the same time, and the 10 Commandments did not get in the Supreme Court building because of the work of a graffiti vandal (although that might work as a defense if the ACLU tries to get it removed…)

But yes, praying in public for the sake of praying in public to be seen by people is not a good idea, even Jesus agrees with you there, feets. But to not pray in public because you don’t want people to see that you believe in praying to God was not endorsed by Daniel, Jesus, Peter, or Paul.

Reagan was a man of faith who had no problem going to his knees to ask guidance, wisdom and help when dealing with difficult problems. I doubt someone goes to that trouble if they plan to subjugate honor or the good of the Country to political expediency or personal greed anyway.

I don’t think Perry is Reagan but I disagree that all politicians are insincere about their faith.

During the Constitutional Convention, Washington would lead the others in prayer when passions boiled over and threatened to derail the discussions. We perhaps owe our great Constitution to his willingness to prey in public.

happy, Jesus did say not to proclaim your faith as, for want of a better word, a jerk, but He also said to spread the Good News throughout the world. It’s a fine line. Doing is better than proclaiming is how I interpret it.

But, now do you answer when doing so is interpreted as being intolerant, crazy or slow? Especially, when Jesus never said be intolerant, crazy or slow?

It’s a mistake for me to suggest religion is unimportant, but I do treat it that way politically unless something severe comes up.
Comment by Dustin

Dustin, I was referring to your comments that maybe Perry is sincere, rather than feets assuming/claiming he was insincere.

All things said and done by a politician are subject to scrutiny. I first reject a candidate who lies to my face about something I know about (like claims that Dems were bothered by Bush’s deficit spending). Then I push aside those who make a habit out of saying certain things in one setting, and something else in another (like those “bitter clingers” in San Fran). And one always wants to be on the lookout for when the real thought process comes slipping through (“spread [your] money around”).

I would also point out that I have never had politicians of faith try to force their religious beliefs on me though liberals openly try to force their anti-Christian beliefs on us all the time and without shame.

I doubt someone goes to that trouble if they plan to subjugate honor or the good of the Country to political expediency or personal greed anyway.

Some do and some don’t. There are great folks out there, some even in politics, and there are some that would pretend. Reagan and Bush 43 had a quality that makes it impossible for me to believe they were pretending.

I don’t mean to disrespect Perry when I say I haven’t seen that in him. I haven’t been looking for it, and I admitted I have a visceral issue.

I’m not going to award a politician points for prayer or religion. I might deduct support on religious grounds, but awarding them is something I’m just not going to do.

It’s my cynicism, but also the fact is all the GOP candidates are going to be saying they have convictions. Aside from some of Romney’s flip flops, they are mostly equally reasonable.

That’s also how I think. And frankly, when Perry’s real philosophy slips through, I like it.

Insofar as he’s insincere, I think it’s the amendments I mentioned to Machinist in my prior comment. I think his consistent philosophy is that he doesn’t believe in imposing on me, and also that he’s interested in staying out of our way so that prosperity might return.

Anyway, some of your comment did impact my reasoning, even though that wasn’t your intention. I wish I could be less cynical.

Of course, all of my posts have nothing to do with Bill Keller’s misunderstanding of the Christian faith.

If I may be so bold, I would say that Keller was probably the product of a Christian household that abandoned the faith for a secular philosophy that incorporated the do-good tenets of Christianity without understanding the the basis for the faith.

Of course you are right Sir. Many make show of faith, like Clinton’s Bible with the oversized cover print for the cameras. I was thinking of people like Reagan who would go to their knees in the Oval Office, not a show for the public. Can you imagine Obama kneeling in the Whitehouse and asking God for wisdom and strength of character? I can’t, not in private.

And my computer clock tells me it’s pumpkin time soon, and I type really slow trying to use leaves and vines
yes, being both generous-hearted and uncynical yet being sharp and shrewd to catch those who need catching is difficult, something about srpents and doves (oops, tendrilss)

Using his newspaper’s pages Keller’s like a big ol’ national thread jacker. Keller doesn’t like it when we talk about the serious issues that are out there everywhere (all the joblessness and depression and foreclosures and fast and furious and bad Obama polls) so with a sleight of hand and a handy printing press he has us talking about religion instead of Bumble being a really bad and scary president. See how that works? We’re going to have to watch Bill Keller and his newspaper like a hawk, I think.

If I may be so bold, I would say that Keller was probably the product of a Christian household that abandoned the faith for a secular philosophy that incorporated the do-good tenets of Christianity without understanding the the basis for the faith.

On the contrary, at least according to his own account it was a very Catholic household. He’s the one who abandoned his parents’ faith.

Then he made the constitutional amendment points, and I think that part was clearly playing politics.

and Dustin:

I think Happyfeet was speaking to this aspect when he mentioned Perry’s support of some constitutional amendments.

I personally liked Perry’s earlier view that the states should got their various directions. Whatever constitutional amendments needed to make that more possible would be as far as I’d want to go.

What amendments, specifically, are you complaining of? AFAIK he supports amendments to establish that the 14th amendment’s protections apply before birth as well as after, and to ensure that states and the federal government aren’t forced to recognise same-sex marriages if they don’t want to. He also (or so I gather) supports amendments to end life appointments of federal judges, ending federal income tax (though if he thinks merely repealing the 16th amendment will have that effect then he’s sadly mistaken), and giving the states a say in judging the constitutionality of federal laws. Which of these do you object to?

The problem with a states rights solution to these issues is history; consider California on
immigration, affirmative action, same sex marriage, Michigan on affirmative action, Arizona on anything, one judge can shut down the whole shindig

Can you imagine Obama kneeling in the Whitehouse and asking God for wisdom and strength of character? I can’t, not in private.

No, sadly I can’t either.

What amendments, specifically, are you complaining of? AFAIK he supports amendments to establish that the 14th amendment’s protections apply before birth as well as after, and to ensure that states and the federal government aren’t forced to recognise same-sex marriages if they don’t want to.

Those.

I’m not interested in bashing the guy, but I find it inconsistent to support different states having different approaches to social issues and then explain how he will use the federal government to settle some of them. Which I realize is not what you’re saying he would do with the marriage amendment, but we’ll see. It does seem to me he modified his views to be more appealing to conservatives, but frankly we’ll see what comes up in the debates.

We all realize this is a bit of a sideshow meant to change the subject from jobs and the economy.

“On Tuesday, Mr. Obama drew a bright line between his religious connection with Mr. Wright, which should be none of the voters’ business, and having a political connection, which would be very much their business.”

1. It’s becoming increasingly likely that an amendment on marriage is necessary, merely to protect states from having same-sex marriage imposed on them by the judiciary.

2. Even if you believe (as I do) that each state should do its own thing, what about the federal government? It too must decide whether to recognise same-sex marriages, and not only is there high-powered federal litigation going on right now to force the feds to recognise them, but the 0bama administration has effectively welcomed that litigation. An amendment may be necessary to protect the fedgov’s right to make up its own mind based on the wishes of the national public. (Personally I would like the fedgov to be strictly neutral on the question, which means recognising same-sex marriages for citizens of states where they’re legal and not for citizens of states where they’re not; but it’s hardly unreasonable for Perry to disagree with me.)

Should an amendment go further and impose a national definition of marriage, thus preventing states from implementing same-sex or plural marriage if they choose? I don’t think so, but if the choice is between such an amendment and none at all, then I’d support it. Better that a handful of states be deprived of the right to implement a change that they lived happily without for 240 years, than that the vast majority of states have such a change imposed on them.

As for a Human Life amendment, again one could support one that merely restores the status quo ante Roe v Wade. And if the Supreme Court were to overturn that decision and its progeny, then there would be no need for an amendment and the support for one would dramatically shrink. But if one is going to go the amendment route anyway, then it’s natural to go for more than merely returning to a less-than-ideal status quo. Why set the rules of the game so that the pro-abortion side can only gain ground and never lose it? Why should states be allowed to legalise the murder of some people?

The diversity argument as it applies to most issues is powerful: if each state can determine its own laws, then if you don’t like the laws in your state you can move to another one. If your state decides to allow people to shoot each other in the street, move to a state with different laws. But how is a baby to vote with its feet? If its home state allows its mother to hire a hitman and have it killed, how is it to flee over the state line to a place where it will be safer? And even if its home state does protect it, how will it prevent its mother from forcibly transporting it to a state where the law considers it fair game? After all, the federal courts will rigorously enforce the mother’s right to travel for any purpose she likes. So long as there is one state where abortion is legal, no baby is safe.

And it is decidedly the law’s business to protect the helpless from being murdered. Just because the economy’s in the toilet, and must take priority over other things, that doesn’t mean we can forget about the first and primary purpose of government: “to secure these rights”. A rescued economy does a person no good at all if he’s dead because the government knowingly allowed a murderer to kill him. What’s the point in stabilising the public debt, from the point of view of someone who will never live to have to pay it? I’d happily burden my descendants with trillions more in debt, if that means I get to have descendants!

No wonder Keller is on the attack against Perry. The newest rumor in the Beltway is a Perry-Christie ticket that Business Insider columnist John Ellis says “has GOP activists nearly giddy with glee.” I’m not an activist but I’d be giddy with glee at that ticket, too.

I don’t expect everyone to agree, but I happen to love CC. I love his fearlessness both with his political adversaries and with the media. He has a powerful personality and a way with words and explanations. CC has shown a prosecutor’s approach to governing –laying out the facts–thinking, improvising on his feet– while moving toward what is actually possible to achieve. Perhaps because I live in a bluish state I get why he takes some of the positions he does. I am a fan. No doubtin’ that man’s a leader. And, he says he is not running for president in 2012 and has given his reasons.

There is also no way I can envision him ever agreeing to be second banana (VP) to anybody in any administration.

Yeah, Milhouse, I disagree heavily with Christie on a few points. I had the same problem with Rudy. A very good leader who I do not agree with. I find self defense to be a basic human right, too.

Still, for VP, this would be an excellent choice from a lot of perspectives. It’s unlikely he would be able to use the VP office to shape policy, but if somehow the president dies, Christie would be able to handle leadership in such a crisis from day one. Not everyone can do that.

You know who this reminds me of? Dick Cheney. Though Cheney is as strong a 2nd amendment supporter as there ever was.

Cheney would have made a great president, though. I wish he were electable.

I like Christie where he is, or even as Secretary of Labor, but I would not want him “heir apparent” to the presidency. As for Giuliani, I don’t want him anywhere near the reins of power. I had enough of him as mayor, thankyouverymuch. I don’t like to use the F word, especially of an Italian, so I’ll just call him “authoritarian”.

CC would ratchet up the entertainment factor in interviews and pressers, that’s for sure.

For better or worse, much of what makes Chris Christie who he is, is his confidence borne from considerable ego. I might be completely misreading the situation but I truly cannot imagine him in a capacity as second fiddle to anyone. I think CC’s leadership style pretty much relies on his being the big fish in the pond, no matter what size the pond is! In short, I can see how several different presidential hopefuls might very reasonably look to Christie as a strong VP choice. But I think if CC were interested in national politics right now he’d be running for president, himself. (Remember, he’s been courted and has declined.)

No one who adores Dick Cheney will say Bush was their ideal president.

You can say that again. After watching the Cheney-Lieberman debate I said that either one of them would make a better president than either one of their principals. And on 11-Sep-2001 I entertained the thought that GWB would have made a better martyr than a president, and that Cheney would have made a great president.

I wouldn’t mind Christie in the “fighter” role of VP candidate; but DRJ raised the spectre of Christie as “heir apparent” to the presidency, and I do not want that.

And if Giuliani were to become president, all the fears about the USA PATRIOT Act would become very relevant. The man is a bully; he’s Elliot Spitzer’s twin. Civil liberties are an alien concept to him, as they are to Spitzer.

I might be completely misreading the situation but I truly cannot imagine him in a capacity as second fiddle to anyone.

This has a ring of truth to me, but you never know.

The leak could just be an effort on Perry’s part for folks to consider the possibilities. A stab at winning some of Romney’s establishment support. A lot of the more entrenched GOP seems to view Perry almost as a threat.

I would really like to see Christie be the VP, and I just don’t think he’s telegenic enough to be the President. I know that’s sick to consider, but it’s probably true.

Christie is slightly unpopular in NJ. I’m not sure he’s going to be reelected. He was right to say he’s not experienced enough to be president (nor are Ryan or Palin or Bachmann or Cain or Romney, in my completely perfect and unfailing opinion).

I can definitely see Christie declining to be someone’s sidekick. I can also see him making the calculation that this is the best thing.

I’m not sure that Christie as Veep wouldn’t be a re-run of Agnew (of course he would need a Safire to write for him), but with Jersey-level corruption instead of Maryland – just how squeeky-clean is he anyway?
Realistically, I take him at his word that he’s not running for higher office at this time – any office.

Obviously being a sitting VP would have materially enhanced Palin’s status and electability. However, despite the McCain-Palin loss, Palin’s standing in the Republican Party was nevertheless elevated by her nomination. She went from being a virtual unknown to a known and/or major force. In other words, being named the VP nominee gives that person a leg up in name recognition and supporters.

At any rate, the failure was probably Mccain’s more than Palin. She did more than her share of shoring up that ticket, as I’m sure you’ll agree.

Of course. She rescued McCain, turning a disaster into a respectable loss. But the topic here is what being VP would do for Christie. So comparisons to Palin are not appropriate, because he would actually be VP, and would be entering the 2020 primaries as a sitting VP, not just as a failed candidate.

I’m not sure that Christie as Veep wouldn’t be a re-run of Agnew (of course he would need a Safire to write for him), but with Jersey-level corruption instead of Maryland – just how squeeky-clean is he anyway?

Don’t you think that if the teachers unions in NJ had anything on Christie, they would have used it by now?

You may be right. Biden certainly hasn’t enhanced his standing with me. His highest poll number in the 2008 Democratic Presidential primary was 21% (in his home state of Delaware). Other than that, he was mired in the second tier of Democratic candidates at 2+% to 4% support. [NOTE: All polls linked here.] But in the most recent poll I could find in mid-2010, VP Biden’s favorable/unfavorable ratings were 43/41. I doubt he’d find much support for President, especially waiting until 2016, but I suspect he’d poll higher than 4% simply because he’s been VP.

More than one person has thought that with Biden as VP, the bar to impeach Obama is very high indeed. Cheney was picked by Bush because he had a long and distinguished career in important positions, Biden was picked to be VP because…of his foreign policy expertise ?!?!?

CC can stand his ground on the positions he holds, which have been economic/ bringing the unions/democratic party alliance under some oversight. Other than that, I’m not sure what positions he holds that are conservative. I would not be enthused.

I like Christie because he is articulate and won’t back down. These qualities appeal to me because they help the eventual GOP ticket communicate what I hope will be its fiscally conservative platform. They are also important since the media will be waiting to pounce on every Republican problem, mistake, and waffle.

I agree with you DRJ on your points about CC (you said it better than I did), and since we live in an imperfect world we will end up needing to compromise somewhere. I would have been willing to compromise for Guiliani even though I am pro-life because G gave his criteria for judges that was fine and said he would not pursue a pro-choice agenda as president. (Maybe that would have been a mistake, but that is what I was thinking.)

Some months ago this terrible case of the abortion doc that was charged with multiple counts of murder here in Philly was in the news. The state’s lax regulations regarding oversight of abortion providers that made it possible for him to get away with it were made under Gov. Tom Ridge (R) (revised from previous more stringent guidelines). Obviously that means nothing in regard to Christie other than the general principle that there are multiple issues to judge a candidate on. Would it be very hard for the Repubs to nominate someone I would not vote for against Obama? Yes, it would be very hard, but I’m not committing to it being impossible.

Milhouse- I appreciate your thoughts. You are correct in pointing out a problem with Guiliani (along with my not being able to spell his name). But, I was also just giving an example on how some compromises could be made.

Perhaps you do, but that doesn’t diminish their importance. They are what America is about, above all else. They are far more important than the economy, or even public safety. And they must be safeguarded, even if it means cooperating with lefties to do so.

How is Mr. Gov. Fat Mittens I Ate The Whole Thing on Mr. Feets’s core issues of Jesuses, fetuses and penises?

Wiki says Christie is Catholic and The Philly Post says he recently became pro-life, making him the first pro-life Governor in New Jersey history. I’m not sure about the third category but I assume as the parent of 4 children, he’s for them (although he has twice vetoed funding for Planned Parenthood).

Christie is a good governor of New Jersey – he’s not really president material I don’t think… he’s a huge global warming whore – that’s a deal-breaker I think and it makes me think he’s not a particularly smart person

While I seriously enjoy my Sirius XM in the car, I had succeeded in forgetting there was a version of “Hooked on a Feeling” that began with the Cro-Magnon “Ugga-Chucka” until last night. I don’t know why they wasted airtime on something like that when they could have played “Dead Skunk” (…it shoulda’ looked left and it shoulda’ looked right, it didn’t see the station wagon car, the skunk got squashed and there you are… Yes, those were the days my friend- wait, that was another song, don’t think I’ve heard that on Sirius yet.)

Palin opposed state-covered health and retiree benefits to same-sex partners of state employees but complied with an Alaska Supreme Court directive to do so and subsequently vetoed a bill that would have denied the benefits. In an interview with Newsweek in 2007, she affirmed her support for an amendment to the state constitution denying benefits to same-sex couples. She later signed a bill ordering a non-binding referendum for a constitutional amendment to deny the benefits. Although the referendum passed in April 2007, with 53 percent of voters supporting a constitutional amendment, a bill to place such an amendment on the ballot in November 2008 stalled in the state legislature.

Doc, you should subscribe to Pandora.com.
Just the music you like and select.
I’ve got Kenton and the Gerald Wilson Big Band, Miles Davis, Chuck Mangione, and for National Holidays: John Phillip Sousa.

BTW, though Webb is sorta famous for not talking about the meaning of “MacArthur Park,” I have heard him talk about it a bit. Most of it is autobiographical, including the pants, the cake and the icing.

I said Sarah please stop your bitching and moaning about the gays and their benefits and she was all “make me, happyfeet and furthermore I think all Alaskans should vote on this subject and if it were up to me I’d take away all their benefits.”

And I said sweet Sarah sunshine I have way too much respect for you to make you do anything.

I have no problem with Sarah Palin as long as she’s not running for president and I seriously doubt she is cause of that would be zany. The original point was that Christie is pro-civil union whereas Palin Perry and Bachmann are not. There’s a real issue what needs to be addressed in some way with respect to the legal status of same sex couples and none of these three offer crap as far as leadership goes. Christie does.

I like the idea of a Christie/Perry combo because they agree on fiscal conservatism. Their alliance would make it more difficult to make the election about evolution or gay anything, and simply focused on administrative skill and cutting out bloat and corruption.

It’s a good idea. I might add to Milhouse to consider this a bit like a Bush/Cheney ticket, only with Cheney in the top role and Bush in the secondary role. It’s a pretty nice upgrade, if you assume the ticket was always going to be a compromise.

Dustin–Since you’re here on this thread and the thread is a jumbled up mess anyway, I’ll just mention that the last couple of days I’ve seen a whole lot about your Texas drought and wildfires. It’s been big on our local news as well as ABC network and PBS newshour. I know the lack of coverage has been bugging you and it looks really awful for people, animals, crops and property.

Carlitos, go find the nearest body of water and stick your head in it for 10 minutes. Yes, Palin has written two books. Yes, she had help from Lynn Vincent, at least for the first one, but they are her work. She didn’t just dictate some tapes and have Bill Ayers turn them into books.

Hey daleyrocks, I was (thisclose) to the former mayor this evening. He was at the Sox game and he, along with owners of a local restaurant group, had a table at the bar at Sox Park. He looks … relaxed.

A Cheney/Bush ticket would have been grand (except for the fact that Cheney has never been electable); but Bush, while a “big government conservative” at least had his heart in the right place on the fundamental basics, such as the bill of rights. If he ended up president we could rest assured that he wouldn’t launch a jihad against our freedoms. With Christie and his opposition to the 2nd amendment, as well as his global-warmenist sympathies, I’m not so sure. Also, he’s a prosecutor, and I’m suspicious of them as a species (sorry Patterico); they may do their job conscientiously (as I’m sure Patterico does), but too many of them seem to see the rights of defendants as an obstacle to be got around, rather than the point of the entire enterprise of government. Maybe I’m just too close to the examples of Giuliani and Spitzer.

Never left cake out in the rain, but we apparently left one in a snow bank somewhere between Irwin, PA and Bryan, Ohio when I was a child. Home to grandma’s for Christmas, when we got there the cake my mom made was not to be found. The theory, never verified, was that the cake was left on top of the car while getting ourselves in at the start of the trip.

When in residency we did two months in the ER of a children’s hospital. One of the “souvenirs” on a shelf was a bottle of “Gripe Water” taken from a parent- apparently a common treatment for colicy babies in some of the West Indies- “active ingredient” was juniper berry extract, “inactive ingredients” included like 20% ethyl alcohol!!

Thanks for the suggestion, AD. I don’t have any device to get Pandora when not at home, but we do listen to it at home sometimes. I typically listen to my “Rich Mullins” station. I don’t think I ever would have sought out Sirius, but it came free for 3 months with the car. It is really handy when driving long distances.
Chuck Mangione, George Benson, and Al DiMieolla (sp?), my foray into jazz.
Karl- so, that was an electric sitar of all things. as feets would say, nobody tells me anything (except you did just now).

ARTHUR: Master! Your people have walked many miles to be with You! They are weary and have not eaten.
BRIAN: It’s not my fault they haven’t eaten!
ARTHUR: There is no food in this high mountain!
BRIAN: Well, what about the juniper bushes over there?
ELSIE: Heh?
FOLLOWERS: Heh! A miracle! A miracle! Ohh!…
SHOE FOLLOWER: He has made the bush fruitful by His words.
YOUTH: They have brought forth juniper berries.
BRIAN: Of course they’ve brought forth juniper berries! They’re juniper bushes! What do you expect?!

DRJ!!!!!!
Not really, because the focus (using the term very loosely) was sort of odd things from the 60’s-70’s-, and your link was just good typical stuff- but as said, the main point was being a bit scattered amidst the craziness, at least that’s what I went with

Karl!!!!
That was interesting. I always thought the sound was simply electronically manipulating the sound of an electric guitar.

There was some car commercial where these animals kept jumping/flying through the ceiling window (I know there’s a better name)- maybe a video should be made that starts out with “Muskrat Love” then morphs into “Born to Be Wild” with a honey badger…